Philosophical Systhesis of Justification: Apprasal of the Calvin- Saumur Perspective for Contemporary Discourse

1 1 Banner of Truth 523 (April 2007). 2 For a useful overview, see Tim Chester, Justification, Ecclesiology and the New Perspective, Themelios 30.2 (Winter 2005), 5- 20. 3 See Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2002), 11. 4 Besides Chester, Thompson and others, see Philip H. Eveson, Justification by Faith Alone (Epsom: Day One Publications, 1996) and Guy Prentiss Waters, Justifcation and the New Perspectives on Paul (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2004). 5 D. A. Carson, Peter T. o'Brien and Mark Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated DISm: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 15-16 6 E. PSanders, Paul and Palestinian ludaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Keu30 (London: SCM, 1977). 7 James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective e on Paul, in Jesus, Paul and the Lauw: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 183-214 8 Ibid. 190. 9 NT Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Cambridge: Lion, 1997), 129. 10NT Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Cambridge: Lion, 1997), 119. 11 Waters, Justification, 175, rightly says that Wright fails adequately to explain Romans 5:9. 12 See Justification and a Final Judgment According to Works, Banner of Truth 523 (April 2007), 7. 13 Sadly, relying only on second-hand citations from J. I. Packer and lain H. Murray, Philip Eveson totally misrepresents Baxter's view of the atonement when he states: His commendable concerns and love for lost sinners made him renounce the widely prevailing belief that Christs death, though sufficient for all, is effective for the elect alone' Justification by Faith Alone, 172). This was precisely Baxter's own view! 14 SeemyAtonementand Justification: English Evangelicalism 1640-1 790-An Evaluation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, repr. 2002). 15J. I. Packer, The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 2003). 16 See lain H. Murray, The Old Evangelicalisn: Old Truths for a New Awakening (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2005). See my critique of Murrays views of the atonement in Calvinus: Authentic Calvinism, A Clarification (Norwich: Charenton Reformed Publishing, 2007). 17 Ian Hamilton, How a Believer's Good Works are Acceptable to God'. Banner of Truth 523 (April 2007), 1. 18 Ian Hamilton 2 19 Ian Hamilton 3. 20 Cornelis P. Venema, 'Justification and a Final Judgement According to Works, Banner of Truth 523 (April 2007), 6. 21 Cornelis P. Venema 14. 22 Owen stated: That upon it (i.e. 'evangelical righteousness') we shall be declared righteous at the last day, and without it none shall so be. And if any shall think meet from hence to conclude unto an evangelical justification, or call God's acceptance of our righteousness by that name, I shall by no means contend with them. And wherever this enquiry is made, -not how a sinner, guilty of death, and obnoxious unto the curse, shall be pardoned, acquitted, and justified, which is by the righteousness of Christ alone imputed unto him - but how a man that professeth evangelical faith, or faith in Christ, shall be tried, judged, and whereon, as such, he shall be justified, we grant that it is, and must be, by his own personal, sincere obedience' Justification by Faith in Works, ed W. H. Goold (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-55), vol. 5, 159-60). 23 Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 225 24 Eveson, Justification by Faith Alone, 61. Eveson fails to grasp the significance of my discussion of this issue (see ibid. 75). While Calvin occasionally defines justification as 'the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Inst. III. xi. 2), high orthodox authors misleadingly cite such statements to endorse their double-imputation view. In view of his ubiquitous teaching, Calvin would be Contradicting himself if they are correct (see note 27). However, the most accurate interpreter of Calvin is David Pareus of Heidelberg (1548-1622), who disputed Cardinal Bellarmine's similar misinterpretation of Calvin's words: [Calvin's] meaning Was not, that there should be a double (formal) cause of justification (for so he would fight against himself, and against the Scriptures) but his intent was, by two Scripture- terms equipollent, the one to the other, to express one and the same formal cause, Or to join these two expressions together exegetically... so that one might help to explain the other' (cited in J. Goodwin, Imputatio fidei, or a Treatise of Justification London, 1642), 121-24). This view is surely made c?ear by Calvin himself. When he states that Christ 'atoned for our sins by his death, and his obedience is imputed to or righteousness' (Comm. 1 Cor. l:30), Calvin merely equates Christ's 'obedience' win his death' (see also Comm. Rom. 4:25). In this Corinthian comment, he is asserting that the imputation of righteousness is something additional to 'the remission of sins. 25 See T. Beza, Tractationes theologiae (Geneva: 1570-82), ii. 248, 256; The Christian Life, tr. J. Clark (Lewes, Sussex: Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 19-22. 26 26 Deux sermons sur la matiere de la justification et de la sanctification (Saumur: L Debordes, 1658), 5 cited in Armstrong, Calvinism, 226. 27 Calvin regularly insists that 'Justification by faith... consists solely in the remission of sins' (nst. III. xi. 21); 'God justifies by pardoning' (ibid. 11); this justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins' (ibid. 21); 'the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such a way as to show that they are altogether the same' (ibid. 22); 'indeed, since it is only by the forgiveness of sins that God is reconciled to us,... This verse teaches clearly what it really is to be justified - to stand before God as if we were righteous... and from this it follows that righteousness consists in the forgiveness of sins' (Comm. Luke 18:13- 14); ... righteousness for Paul is nothing other than the remission of sins' (Comm. Rom. 4:6). 28 Quatre sermons sur le chap. vi de l'epistre aux Hebrieux (Saumur: I. Desbordes, 1657), 18-19 cited in Armstrong, Calvinisnm, 230. 29 While Calvin clearly grounds Christ's saving work in the whole of his obedience (see Inst. II. xvi. 5), he plainly implies that while he possessed innate and habitual holiness, the 'active' aspect publicly demonstrated Christ's qualification to be the guiltless sin-bearer (see also Commn. Heb. 7:26-7). Since a guilty mediator could not mediate, his own obedience is thus immediately relevant to his mediatorial role, and to the believer's justification only indirectly. In the passage just cited from the Institutes, Calvin focuses attention on Christ's sacrifice as the basis of 'pardon' (= 'righteousness'). At no point does he even mention imputation, let alone hint that this includes the 'active' obedience (the term is, of course, post Calvin). Untypical of the high orthodox tendency to over-react to medieval theology, Calvin would have us believe that Christ's 'active' obedience or example is for imitation rather than imputation (see Comm. 1 John 2:6). 30 Armstrong, Calvinism, 225. Calvin always defines pardon or justification in terms of Christ's death alone: Christ has attained righteousness for sinners by his death (Comm. Rom. 5:9); righteousness has been procured for us by the death of Christ, so that our sins being abolished, we are acceptable to God' (Comm. Col. 1:22); 'Our righteousness has been procured by the obedience of Christ which he displayed in his death (Comm. Rom. 4:25);'Christ by his obedience satisfied the judgement of the father... Our guilt is taken away by the expiatory sacrifice which he offered' (Comm. Rom. 3:24); 'When [Paul]... states that we are made righteous by